Post navigation

The Choice Between Love and Hostility

Recently I’ve been posting a lot of material from and about people who recognise the need to share the gospel with those from a Muslim background, a sharing in both word and deed.

I’ve felt the need to give prominence to that ministry direction because I’ve become increasingly aware that the complete opposite is happening – that too many professing Christians are responding to Muslims with hostility and fear. And it’s happening at a time when opportunities to reach out to those from Muslim backgrounds are increasing, and are becoming more and more critical.

Many of those Muslim background people are in an extremely vulnerable position. Many have witnessed the worst of what’s being done in the name of Islam, have lost everything because of it and are in desperate need of help.

Consider what response they’ve been getting from those who are able to help.

I’ve seen far too much hostility directed against them, even by recognised Bible teachers. I’ve drawn attention to some of that in previous posts.*
While individually we may not be in a position to personally interact with a person of Muslim background, we can ALL do something about the toxic atmosphere that makes the ministry of others more difficult.

I feel that the professing Christians are at a critical point in history, when we will face the choice between obedience to Jesus and His gospel, and the security of our comfortable lifestyles. If we choose the latter we’re likely to see our fears realised and we’ll lose the security we idolised and tried so hard to protect.
And even worse than losing that revered security, those misplaced priorities potentially put our relationship with God at risk.

It looks like the common readers there don’t actually feel a need to read what is said before agreeing. Are they humoring an old friend (or maybe a family member)? That won’t cut it, so to speak. What is said doesn’t have to add up, to them; all that matters is he doesn’t like Muslims and hints toward white superiority (while he denies it’s about race or color even as he points out blackness, etc.).

Yes Steve, politicians are one of the most active groups in promoting an anti-Muslim agenda. It seems politics works best when there’s an enemy to rail against.
Sadly many Christians not only fall for the rhetoric, but they become no less active in promoting the politician’s agenda; and agenda that effectively opposes a lot of Jesus’s teaching and commandments and hinders the gospel.

Hi Marleen,
You only have to look at some of the phrases used to describe Muslims and consider how incompatible those descriptions are with the teachings of Jesus and His apostles to see there’s something VERY wrong going on.

Who would be so cruel as to knowingly baptize civilized people who pay taxes and play by the rules in their own lands, with utter savages ? (Make no mistake, Islam is proven savagery).

The irrationality and hateful racism expressed throughout so much of that particular post is disturbing – it seems to increase with every article in his recent series. And most disturbing is that he tries to twist scripture to support it all, and yet the content of his diatribe could hardly be less Christlike, and therefore could hardly be less in accord with scripture.

And that if I did I wouldn’t post on it, since he’ll delete it anyway. (Bless your heart, Marleen; somehow you’re able to get your disagreeing comments past him. You go, girl !)

So I made my post short, hoping he may read the call to repentance before deciding to nuke it:

“You keep arguing from false premises, Bill. Whatever Christian influences have worked on “western civilization” to the good, western civilization is not Christian, and is not (nor ever has been) good. God’s Kingdom is the complete alternative, and only alternative, to every civilization, culture, or kingdom of men. That includes our own.

“Contrasting our culture and institutions with those of Muslims in order to bash them and theirs (and not coincidentally, make us PROUD of, and ready to fight for, ours) is simply partisanship (see Galatians 5:20). It’s also a dishonest way of structuring an argument.

“I’d urge you to re-think the premises on which you base your argument, as well as how you argue it, and your purposes in it. Please seek God on whether He’s saying it’s time for the Church to repel Muslims, or if He’s saying it’s time for judgement to begin in His household (I Peter 4:17).”

Even more disturbing than his un-Christlike hateful rhetoric against unbelievers* and his partisan-political agenda, is the fact that he’s trying to justify what he writes with large slabs of quoted scripture. Scripture that actually has NOTHING to do with the argument he’s presenting.

And then, as if that’s not enough – he has a devoted choir backing him with supportive comments. (2 Tim 4:3 again)

* Muslims also need Jesus and are able to seek and find Him – but what would make them seek the truth of the gospel if they think Bill Randle’s posts are an example of it?

Hi Steve,
I’ve scheduled a recorded discussion to be posted on this blog sometime tomorrow. There’s an interesting part of the discussion about the way Muslims are allegedly taking over the world through having so many children (more than “western” families). The discussion in the audio exposes the foolishness of those claims of Muslim invasion through pro-creation.

I was reminded of something BR posted where he claimed: “Because Europeans for the most part cannot be bothered to have children…” that Europe had to fill the tax-payer void by welcoming migrants, particularly “hordes of third world , barbarian savages” (referring to Muslims).

Now this reminds me of at least a couple things. He said the leaders in Europe were bringing in these foreigners to be taxpayers… and then he complained that these foreigners are brought in so then the leaders don’t have to listen to the taxpayers (as in the white or more establish ones… oh, except it’s “not” about color or anything — even though one of his specifications of the hordes was “black” Africans)! All that mattered was that the accusations are served up. [Haven’t been back there in a little while, so I’m still hoping he turned a corner; but I don’t know.]

He said, also, derisively (to show that he’s offended or his readers should be) that people are “interchangeable” (to the leaders). [Maybe words or the uses of them are interchangeable to “some” people already — but now here’s a new accusation in addition to calling the new, replacement taxpayers not taxpayers; now we’re going to say leaders don’t care about the old taxpayers (who didn’t have enough children — which is both bad to BR and a reason for him to disagree and disdain the leaders evaluating that there aren’t enough).]

It’s wrong to use the word interchangeable; European leaders aren’t sending current citizens over to be citizens of Syria, Kenya, Morocco, etc. to make room for the immigrants (and I thought the idea was that there aren’t enough people), and the policy isn’t to kill the current citizens off or incarcerate them to make way. And, cringe, I want to ask for your responses to this: on the same day, someone (who knows nothing of the conversation) said to me that “the God of the Bible sees people as interchangeable or replaceable.” He said, “Job …”

Marleen,
Some of his comments to be hatefully racist and bigoted, far from being a genuine Christian witness to anybody – instead he effectively pushes those replacement “taxpayers” away from the Lord. (He portrays them as unwanted as taxpayers or fellow citizens in “the west” – so why would they think they could be accepted by his [BR’s] God?)

European leaders aren’t sending current citizens over to be citizens of Syria, Kenya, Morocco, etc. to make room for the immigrants

But in the past they DID send their citizens to those kind of countries to exploit and supress the native populations, and in recent years have joined or initiated military conflicts that have effectively destabilised the nations from which many of the “flood” of Muslims are fleeing.

And maybe the most disturbing thing about his recent series of posts are the dedicated followers who applaud everything he says.

Yes, I see that (that they sent their citizens in the past to exploit and suppress), Tim. But they weren’t saying Let’s get these citizens out of here and bring in some other kind. [Nevertheless, if leaders (most especially in the U.S.) find ways to keep their own children out of the armed services but send troops thus and there and anywhere anyway, then there are people they don’t value. At least not in the same way; they do seem to find utility in them. Motivation to keep civilian pay low and college expensive.]